Garth Erlam, on 22 November 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:
I think we'll probably lengthen unjam time somewhat, maybe increase the chance of a jam. Not too much though.
Frankly, the UAC-5 was the most underrated weapon we had for MONTHS. I had a successful Dragon build (back when it was declared they were 'useless') that was centred around a single UAC-5. Sometimes I almost miss that Mech...
Now, now, Garth. That's not very necessary. I've been using twin UAC's exclusively for the last 24 hours, and a good 1/4 of the time, they jam after the first shot. 1/2 the time, they jam after about three shots. In 4 seconds, one will almost always jam, and then the second one will jam almost as quickly as the first one finished unjamming. For about three or four seconds every 15-20 seconds of firing, I get that sweet spot where both UACs are firing linked, but staggered, at full auto.
I love UACs as they are, but increasing the jam rate or the unjam time would be a mistake, in my [not so] humble opinion. If you're going to increase one, decrease the other in tandem; that is, if you were to change anything, either increase the jam frequency but lower the unjam time, or lower the jam frequency but increase the unjam time. Making both worse would turn a decently balanced weapon into a rather poor choice.
Also, people have to consider something important. In order to run a UAC5 for the match, you have to have at least 6 or 7 tons of ammo. A single UAC will chew through 25 rounds inside of 10 or 12 seconds - that's a whole ton. Twin UACs (as I run) chew through a ton of ammo in about five seconds or so. This is why my CTX-4X carries a whopping 15 tons of UAC ammo - because I never reach the end of a decent match without coming down to my last ton of ammo. And I am not wasteful. UACs just have an extreme ammo deficiency.